THE FAMILY COURT PROJECT HAS COME TO A CLOSE.
Effective 6/1/08, Family Court Chronicles has become inactive (announcement), and
no new information will be added. The page below is retained for
archive purposes, but it could be out of date. Upon request,
the webmaster will
continue to correct significant errors and will consider
removing information that is destructively obsolete.
(Email: FamilyCourtGuy (at) gmail.com) See
Glenn Campbell's home page for his still-active websites.

This section was my workspace for philosophy essays between July 2006 and April 2008.
I call this "Prehistoric Kilroy" because it gave me practice for more
disciplined essays in Kilroy Cafe.Also see my philophical blog and Twitter feed.

Issue #37, 12/2/2006

Beyond the Prime Directive

By Glenn CampbellFamily Court Philosopher

The "Prime Directive" is the Star Trek principle that it is
best to leave well enough alone. Space travellers should not
be intervening in the development of primitive planets, no
matter how noble the intent. The simple reason is that you
can't predict all of the long-term effects of your actions.
Even "good" technology, like life-saving medicine, can have
bad results over time—say, by encouraging a population
explosion.

The Prime Directive is a pretty good starting position in
any moral argument. Should you be interfering in other
people's lives? In general, no, people are best equipped to
deal with their own problems. This is a guiding principle of
American government—that it should not interfere in
the lives of its citizen's without specific authority and
solid grounds. It should also be a starting principle for you
and I when deciding how we should interact with the world.

Often we see people in obvious distress or conducting their
lives in ways that we know are self-destructive. That
doesn't mean it is our place to intervene. We may choose
not to intrude even when we see a crime being committed or
when we know that we are perfectly capable of helping. The
fact is, intervention can be both costly and risky. Your
actions may be well-intentioned, but that doesn't guaranteed
they'll be effective, and if there are any unexpected side
effects, you will be responsible.

That said, intervention is the purpose of life. Your role as
a human is not just to travel through space observing
planets from afar. You are now trapped on a planet, already
enmeshed in its affairs, and your only real meaning is
derived from somehow trying to improve it.

The only problem is how to be effective.
Random, emotionally-driven interventions are not
necessarily the best approach. You live on a planet where
there is virtually infinite suffering. You can't possible
solve it all, so you have to be selective in your
efforts. Just because someone needs you doesn't mean
you should help, because helping in this one instance may
prevent you for intervening elsewhere, where you can
perhaps be more useful.

The Prime Directive is our natural base. It gives us
permission, for the moment at least, to ignore problems that
we have no personal connection with. There are a lot of
starving people in the world, but we are not going to try to
feed them. If we see a parent in the supermarket speaking to
their child in a way that we regard as demeaning or
unproductive, we're probably not going to step in and offer
parenting advice. The Prime Directive lets us act as space
travellers most of the time, observing but not intervening.
It is a practical and necessary position, because we simply
don't have the resources to intervene everywhere.

Whenever we choose to violate the Prime Directive, then we
become implicated in this local environment. At the
least, we will be responsible for all of the direct and
indirect results of our intervention. At worst, we will
become one of them, an entrenched member of the tribe, and
lose our special "alien" powers to intervene.

All meaningful activities in the world involve some form of
intervention. Even if we fall in love, we are intervening
in a local culture. If things work out the way we want them
to, then the object of our desire is going to become
emotionally dependent on us, and we on them. This is a
two-edged sword: It is nice to be needed, but we will
probably lose some of our power to influence this person
(since they already have our commitment). Because this
relationship has taken us over, we may also lose much of our
ability to intervene elsewhere.

As we see in divorce court, not all of the effects of
romantic intervention are beneficial. Something good in the
short term—falling in love—can turn into a
destructive force in the long term—say, an unhealthy
dependence of one party on the other. Whenever you intervene
on a primitive planet, no matter how noble your intentions,
there is a risk that the results may not be what you
planned.

"Primitive" in the Star Trek universe is any planet that has
not yet developed the warp drive. In the human universe, it
is anyone whose maturity, skills or resources are less than
ours. In relation to us, most of the world is quite
primitive. Most people on earth live in conditions that we
would regard as degrading, and most children will never be

Always be careful when beaming down to primitive planets.

raised according to the standards that we consider optimal.
We decline to intervene in most of these cases not just
because we don't have the resources but because intervention
from outer space becomes so damn complicated.

Think about feeding the pigeons in a city park. To the
pigeons, you are like an alien from the Starship
Enterprise, swooping in from space to deliver good things
that have no apparent explanation. Think about how your
breadcrumbs can disrupt pigeon culture. If you feed the
pigeons for a while, they will become dependent on you.
Instead of seeking sustainable local food sources, they
begin to assume that you will always be there. Their
population may balloon, outstripping any local food source.
The pigeons may also come to see you as a god who can solve
all of their other problems. Soon they may be worshipping
and making sacrifices to this god—and cursing him when
things go wrong.

You, in turn, may sense your flock's growing dependence and
feel trapped into feeding them every day. You can't depart
for a more productive mission for fear that your pigeons
will starve. Over time, the well-fed pigeon population
grows to the point where even your breadcrumbs are not
enough. Ultimately, there may be just as many suffering
pigeons as before, except now you are enmeshed in their
culture and can't escape.

Most pigeons—and humans—live in seemingly
wretched conditions, but if left alone they will develop
organic, self-sustaining systems to deal with this
environment. We may be appalled by some of these systems,
which could involve cannibalism or human sacrifices to gods
we know are imaginary. The waste of individual lives
may be huge and the justice reprehensible, but the system
may still be relatively sustainable and tolerable compared
to the alternatives. What's more important, it doesn't
require our involvement.

A naive intervention in this system can often be worse than
none at all. You can swoop down from space like Captain America,
feeding the hungry and arresting the dictators who run the
place. You think you are saving the day, but what often
happens instead is that you create an instability in the
system, and it reacts in violent ways you didn't anticipate.
Ultimately, the system may adjust to your presence: There is
just as much suffering as before, except now you are
thoroughly implicated and entrenched in the tragedy.

Effective intervention has to be cautious, thoughtful,
discreet and limited. You shouldn't dash in like a white
knight rescuing maidens in distress, because you don't know
how difficult those maidens can be when you actually have
them in your arms. It is usually better to arrive quietly
on foot and thoroughly understand the environment before
you try to intervene.

The best intervention is invisible. It is a quiet solution
that empowers the local primitive to solve his own problems
without disrupting his whole culture and without tying you
down.

The Prime Directive should not be your highest guiding
principle, but when you choose to violate it, your goal must
be realistic, and your intervention should be limited to the
minimal actions needed to achieve the goal. Then, when
things are quiet and relatively stable, you should beam back
to the ship and get the hell out!